Hi Andre, On 16 October 2017 at 23:30, André Przywara <andre.przyw...@arm.com> wrote: > Hi, > > sorry Simon for dropping the ball earlier. I will try to answer both > Jagan's and your concern below. > > On 16/10/17 21:59, Jagan Teki wrote: >> On Mon, Oct 9, 2017 at 10:15 AM, Simon Glass <s...@chromium.org> wrote: >>> Hi Andre, >>> >>> On 4 October 2017 at 17:24, Andre Przywara <andre.przyw...@arm.com> wrote: >>>> Newer versions of the device tree compiler (rightfully) complain about >>>> mismatches between attributed node names (name@<addr>) and a missing >>>> reg property in that node. >>>> Adjust the FIT build script for 64-bit Allwinner boards to remove the >>>> bogus addresses from the node names and avoid the warnings. >>>> >>>> Signed-off-by: Andre Przywara <andre.przyw...@arm.com> >>>> --- >>>> board/sunxi/mksunxi_fit_atf.sh | 16 ++++++++-------- >>>> 1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-) >>> >>> It looks like we have this problem all over the place. The >>> documentation in doc/uImage now seems to have this problem too. >>> >>> I wonder if instead we should add reg / #address-cells / #size-cells >>> properties? >> >> If the update on dts, might be an another-overhead to maintain u-boot >> dts wrt Linux dts sync. > > This is not the kernel .dts, but the FIT image description (using the > DTS format), which is purely private to U-Boot. I erroneously used > addresses (fdt@1) to enumerate different FDTs. > I don't think this is right, since those FDTs don't have anything which > would resemble an address. Instead the SPL just chooses one of them, and > the script generates as many as we give it (from defconfig). > > So I don't see much sense in introducing a "reg" property. Multiple > instances of an UART are alive at the same time, so an address property > makes sense. But we just need *one* FDT and some unique name used to > match configuration entries to the appropriate image. Actually those > identifiers could be totally random as well, or we actually use > something derived from the filename. > But for simplicity I'd just go with the underscore notation, unless > someone convinces me otherwise.
OTOH this really just a feature of the DT format. Adding a 'reg' property can be justified on that basis. Or perhaps we should have an option for dtc to support 'degenerate' .dts files? The underscore is normally used for phandles. Regards, Simon _______________________________________________ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de https://lists.denx.de/listinfo/u-boot
